Britons Want To Know Why David Miranda Was Detained Under an Anti-Terrorism Law
Since they wanted information about inconvenient journalism
LONDON — Demands grew on Monday for the British government to explain why it had used antiterrorism powers to detain the partner of a journalist who has written about surveillance programs based on leaks by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden.
David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian citizen and the partner of the American journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, was held Sunday at Heathrow Airport in London for nine hours, the maximum allowed by law, before being released without charge.
"They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn't cooperate," Mr. Miranda said Tuesday in an interview with The Guardian newspaper, where Mr. Greenwald is a columnist. "They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the U.K."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Brits ain't the only ones.
When the government gets involved, it's naive to think they will respect the law in doing so, whether it's the US or UK one...
It's just an excuse, and the police officer who said that Miranda had been lawfully detained to determine whether he is involved in terrorism is not telling the truth. But what are the chances the police will be charged with making such an evidently false statement?